I dont know but personally I feel to make it easier and more convenient either the version number should be made 7.0 or the name shouldn't be 7.

7 signifies neither that its the 7th release of windows nor its version number, since both will be untrue. Therefore please make the version as 7.0 or else give a different name

I actually for once - LOVE that we are keeping the name of the OS simple and leaving it at Win7. I will

I still think it should be named Windows Vista SE. Most of the improvements and changes are things that were supposed to be in Vista in the first place and also visually it looks almost the same (judging from screenshots although there could be more visual changes than i witnessed). Now don't get me wrong I have a laptop with Windows Vista and I LOVE IT! Yes there were some issues but sp1 fixed most of them and sp2 will fix the few remainders. The people that complain about Vista are the ones that buy crappy pcs with unbalanced configurations and expect it to run Aero with ease. That's obviously not going to happen with an operating system as rich as Vista. Windows 7 will probably be a noticeable improvement but 1. Windows 7? Come on you gotta do better than that. 2. Unless there's a major overhaul I'd rather stick to Vista.

"So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties."

wow, this post is hilarious.

Why did Mike even have to add this extra blog entry? It's just a name.  Microsoft could have called the new version, Windows Bob, and people with nothing better to do would still have a whinge.

Go and have a cry now.

I love this Name !!

Great Microsoft.

Pls. Mr Mike

it's possible video streaming for Consumer Enthusiast of PDC session Steven Sinofsky?

Wow.  That makes total sense.

Not.

We'll just count all 9X versions as one, and Windows 3.0 and NT count as one release, too.    

And I just love how you learned your lesson by keeping XP at 5.1, yet forgot it again when you called Vista 6.0.

So let me get this straight, you counted all the changed in the major version numbers, except 6.1.  Yikes.  

Updated accordingly. Sorry for the hassle, Mike.

.Net 1.0 wird in C# 1 programmiert. .Net 1.1 wird in C# 1 programmiert. .Net 2.0 wird in C# 2 programmiert. .Net 3.0 wird in C# 2 programmiert. .Net 3.5 wird in C# 3 programmiert.   Windows 2000 besaß die Versionsnummer 5.0. Windows XP be

Hey, I was thinking about it and from your previous post, it looks like you’re going for using the aspirations of what Vista has established as a base for the next foreseeable operating systems, right?

Because of that, deciding to not use a new aspiration-like name makes a lot of sense; plus, using a numbering convention does make things more straightforward and sequential, which is a really good thing. The simplicity factor is really a strong point.

At the same time, not having the word “Vista” in there kind of seems like a disconnection of the “sub-brand” of Windows if you get what I mean. So, what I was thinking is:

-brand (Windows)

-sub-brand (Vista)

-specific iteration name

How about linking it into the idea of a vista and focus each time on specific ideas of vistas like “Sunset” or “Island”? So, for example, one after the other you could release:

Windows Vista: Sunset

Windows Vista: Mountain Range

Windows Vista: Ocean Verge

Windows Vista: Forest

That way you have the umbrella of Vista, and then you can keep that base idea while evolving a distinct branch-off. You could have colour and themes and stuff relating to a specific “vista” on the packaging, the default UI, the marketing campaign and such like.

Probably it’d be too late to change it now anyways, but just I thought it might be some good feedback for you guys.

Keep up the good work : )

if anyone saw the formal announcement yesterday from Mike Nash regarding the name for the next version

You say:

Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1.

I'd like an explanation where Windows NT 4.0 comes into play, then.

And I thought Microsoft was not using version numbers mainly because the public didn't like the idea of using "Windows 14" in the future because it sounds so antiquated, so you went to year numbers.  After that failed ("OMG, you're using Windows 2000?!!?!  That's SO OLD"), MS decided to switch to naming the operating systems.  And now you're going BACK to version numbers?

I like simplicity of Windows 7 name.

However, I hate the complexity of 6.1 versioning. With all due respect to application compatibility, it should be very simple to add an OS feature to "override" version number reported to application if it is known to act up when it sees 7.0, but we need to start teaching developers how to develop, not giving in to their mistakes and numbering entire operating system as 6.1 just because few developers out there are clueless about how to properly check for version compatibility.

@adir1:

It has nothing to do with developers not knowing how to create applications. When the major is incremented, it generally signifies that the OS has a large number of changes to some features relied upon by third party applications.

This is why most applications look at kernel revision numbers: if a lot of changes are made between one OS and its sequel and the kernel major isn't incremented, the application which looks out for that "flag" might crash when trying to access methods which would have worked in the previous OS.

If anything, it means the developers are properly doing their jobs.

I think that not is very important the Name for Windows.

The most importante is the performace of Windows, code, high quality.

i'm Developer, so, i want a good OS for create a lot of projects.

Hmm...

Windows 7

Mac OS 10.5

Will new shoppers believe that Mac is "newer"?

Thanks for clarifying!

Como es sabido la próxima versión de Windows se denominará Windows 7, Microsoft ha estado soltando algunos

I'm still not entirely sure on how the numbers work out, but I like the name anyways :)

I do not dislike the name Windows 7. Although it is meaningless without being version numbered NT 7.0 it doesn't matter. What matters is the mismatch. No one is liking the mismatch. Please change the version number to NT 7.0. And Windows XP shipped only 1.5 years after Windows 2000, so it's also logical to call it 5.1 although it had several kernel improvements. In case of Windows Vista and Windows 7, it's a gap of 3 years. Please consider changing to NT 7.0. (As an exception, we're ready for the application compatibility issues that may arise out of this version number thing) but prevent the confusion and meaninglessness of the name.

People like names to mean something.

When I first heard of Windows Vista I thought it was a silly name. But once I saw how nice it looked and the glass effect of Aero it made sense to me

Windows = Something you see through

Vista = A beautiful view

I like the name Windows 7, and it made sense to me with Vista being 6 so the next version should be 7...

Now that line of thinking has been thrown out the window. Perhaps I can convince my self that version 6.1 is really a code for version 6 + 1...

Eventhough I think it is a bit silly to call it Windows 7 where the 7 isn't referenced anywhere in the code I'm sure everyone will get over it and learn to love it all the same... heck look at Nintendo's 'Wii' everyone hated that name when it came out and now it is the worlds most popular video game console.

I've been programming Windows for 13 years and don't know whether to laugh or shake my head when reading this post.  I will say thanks for at least addressing the issue however.

"Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility."

I doubt this very much.  XP was set of evolutionary improvements over 2000 and so the version number of 5.1 was very fitting and very deserving.  Certain components (namely, shell & common controls) DID do their own thing and bump up to V6 with XP (causing additional issues when they were still V6 in Vista), but overall the OS would never have been considered worthy of NT 6.0 by anybody.

Likewise, "7" is a set of evolutionary improvements over Vista and so the version number of 6.1 is very fitting.  From everything that's been revealed thus far about "7" -- unless you guys are holding some major cards up your sleeve, it's NOT going to be major in any of the ways that made NT4, 2000, or Vista major, and is thus not deserving of NT7.0 at all.

Anyways, if you're now claiming that XP was "major", then it should definitely be included in your list of Windows versions as "6", then Vista would be "7" and "7" would be "8".

"Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system.  It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation."

I'm sure it is a big effort -- simply the number of end users it will end up having, makes it so.  But then couldn't even service packs be considered major efforts?

The point is that 7 isn't as major as Vista.  Not as major as 2000.  I guess as a developer, I am biased, in my measure of majorness is in terms of how much has changed/been added in terms of subsystems, APIs, and underlying capabilities.

"There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7.  It is not."

Of course it's a very relevant release -- it's the minor versions of Windows (3.1, 98, XP) that have been the most successful, because they've built upon the .0 before them but refined the .0's rough edges.  And a version of Windows that builds upon Vista's incredible platform and then fills in the cracks (or in Vista's case by certain people's opinions, chasms) -- is exactly what we need right now.  And it sounds like that's exactly what Windows 7 is.

The major-minor heartbeat of Windows has worked well for years and to claim that nothing is ever minor is just wrong.  Yes, minor versions of Windows are more major than most any other software product out there, but compared to true major Windows versions, they are minor.

It makes me wonder, if it were up to you (you being SteveSi and whoever else makes these decisions) -- what *would* qualify as a minor release?  An infinite series of .0's (like Office does) is kinda silly; maybe you should just stick the service pack level in the minor version slot and be done with it?

"The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers."

Even bumping the *minor* version number can cause problems -- evidenced by apps that install on XP but not 2003 -- so why not stay at 6.0 forever?  I'm curious for how long this will remain; Java did 1.0-1.5 and then artificially jumped 1.6 to 6.0.  Same thing for Solaris: 2.7 became 7.0.

Overall, I *am* a fan of using a simple marketing name that reflects the version.  When Longhorn was under development, I was hoping for it to be released simply as Windows 6.0 (the old-school in me wanted it named Windows NT 6.0).  I'm not opposed to "7" if it really truly was an 7.0-worthy release.  But it isn't.  And what happens when the real 7.0 comes along -- will it need to be skipped to avoid the certain confusion?

My personal opinion is that Steven Sinofsky brought over the "major version only" mentality from Office and 1) scrapped the non-scope-implying codename Vienna and replaced it with "7", leading the public to expect another release, 2) cooler heads prevailed and realized that it isn't major enough to be 7.0 so it became 6.1.  Yet no one at MS wants to admit that in the grand scheme of things, it's a comparatively minor release, so no one's willing to be brave and stick up for calling it Windows 6.1 after all the months of letting the Windows 7 codename float around.  It would seem like backpedaling of sorts, almost an admission that what we need is an improved Vista, whereas with artificially using the number 7 you get to convey a bigger departure from Vista than what really exists.

Anyway, thanks for the post, and thanks for reading my lengthy comments.

Oh, and one other thing... if 6.1 seems to meager, you can always use 6.5.  Plenty of significant products .5 monikers (NT 3.5, IE 5.5, Exchange 5.5, SQL Server 6.5).

Die nächste Betriebssystem-Generation von Microsoft wird den Namen " Windows 7 " tragen. Dies

• Firefox 3.1 beta 1 now available for download and First look: Firefox 3.1 beta 1 officially released • Fake Microsoft Patch Tuesday malware campaign spreading - Fake notifications lead to malware, not patches. • Why 7? - It may...

※ITmedia より記事抜粋「Windows 7」がなぜ7番目のWindows...

This is going to get confusing!

The Windows 7 name is great - nice and simple, and I can see where the numbering comes from.

As for the Windows 6.1 version number - I can also see the logical sense in this.

HOWEVER, I think it's going to cause massive issues down the line due to this "product vs. codebase" numbering disparity.  Will Windows 8 The Product (which one assumes may be a big architectural re-write similar to Windows 2000/Vista) be versioned as v7.0?

I agree with the other comments that calling this code base v6.1 just to compensate for sloppy version-check code is not a good reason for this disparity between product and version naming...

Let's face it the name is for consumers and company bureaucrats who don't IT but write the checks. Microsoft is just distancing this release from Vista. I sincerely hope Microsoft has something up it's sleeve, because if it's like the Beta of IE 8 or the small amount of photo's on the net, it will be nothing more than Vista ME 2.  As our illustrious political leaders love to state, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."  

"Vita per Moenia"    

I still think this is all to confusing and the logic laid out in the blog post doesn't really make sense (By your logic WinXP (a major release) should be Windows 6 and WinVista (a major release) Should be Windows 7) but I think you can rectify it in the future, if you keep the new naming convention... When Windows 8 comes out just make sure it is v8.0. You can artifically skip v7.0.

This is lame. I understand why they are doing it, but it's still lame. There are app compatibility features built into the OS, let folks use those for the few apps that will have issues.

If you're going to call it Windows 7, then winver should report that. If you can't do that, then just give it some random name like Vista and XP.

Only Microsoft cab pull off a blog post like this. Incredible! Just when I thought "Windows 7" would simplify things.

Y'all should just call it Windows Vista SP3. Isn't that pretty much exactly what Windows 7 will be? It shares the same kernel and such, so I can't imagine it will be much different from Vista itself.

Now you call it a major release? How so? Even the numbering above doesn't make complete sense.

Just admit it - you decided to call it Windows 7 because it a> sounds cool and b> has absolutely no reference to anything Vista.

Really it's just Vista SP3 no matter what the big brains at Microsoft (who did so amazingly well with Vista in the first place and are helping with this effort too? I can only cringe) want to call it.

I can't beleive some of the odd comments.

I can see that the Devs are doing their job because of the driver and software compatability issues involved in Vista that are not so evident here, In Widows 7 everything seems to work or has a builtin work around...I am using hardware and software that would not install in Vista.

7 is a lucky number...and I am the lucky one that gets to use my hardware that was in a box!

Let me get this straight.

Windows 7 will have a winver response of 6.1?

That makes no sense Mike. No sense whatsoever. You keep posting blogs trying to explain this, but nothing you have said so far makes any sense other than a complete marketing ploy.

I guess Marketing still gets to decide things for the coders at Microsoft. What a way to assign priorities.

I would like to see return of legacy WDM drivers and DirectSound.

What i mean by this is if i have a sound blaster live platium and i install Windows XP WDM drivers it should work on windows 7.

Also i'd like to see more compatibility for older programs with XP/2000 and lower system specs.

That would make windows good again and users will not have to buy a brand new pc / hardware to use it.

Brandon,

It's hilarious. You are justifying naming something "7" even though behind the scenes even the coders know it's "6.1".

Brandon, you are terrible at analogies. XP makes sense to be 5.1 because "XP" and "5.1" are completely unrelated.

In the case of Windows 7 this is not the case. Windows 7 is in actuality Windows 6.1. If I run winmsd and the version comes up "6.1" guess what Brandon? - it's running Windows 6.1...not Windows 7.0.

marketing trumps logic again I guess. Windows 7 does sound a lot cooler than Windows 6.1, but really this is just a minor release and is in fact a warmed over Vista with yet another service pack, correct? Ribbon bars and touch screens do NOT a major release make.

Brandon,

You are truely the Dana Perino of Microsoft.

:)

The Windows 7 name makes sense to me.

For one, the name itself is something that can be marketed to the general public.  As a developer and a small business owner I realize that the terminology and names you use as a developer may not be realistic to use when talking to your customers.  You need to provide a name that is easy to remember, sets your product apart and has a nice marketing ring.

Second, the name make sense if you follow the grouping that Mike outlined.  These groupings tend to be the same mental groups I have lumped the various "versions" of Windows into anyway.

1 = 1.0

2 = 2.0

3 = 3.0

4 = 9X

5 = 2000, XP

6 = Vista

7 = 7  

I can also understand the actual OS version for 7 being 6.1 because they are trying to imply that while there are significant changes to the OS that qualify as a Major release there are minimal breaking changes in the API's between Vista and 7.

So, it seems to me that the name was chosen more for marketing reasons to highlight the fact that this is a significant enhancement in features while the actual OS version was chosen to represent the volume of breaking changes in the API's between Vista and 7.

Why not just title it Windows 6.1?

Its still simple, and you keep the kernel version number, and it matches more what it is going to be in relation to vista.

From what I have seen, 7 is hardly going to be a major revision.

And if your determined to use windows 7, but say you cant increase the kernel number to 7 then I must ask: isn't that what the windows compatibility settings are meant to accomplish?  Its really a non issue, considering it would be such an easy obstacle to overcome.

Die Versionsnummern der verschiedenen Windows-Betriebssysteme k�nnen unter Umst�nden schomal f�r etwas Verwirrung sorgen. So handelt es sich bei Windows 2000 beispielsweise um die Version 5.0 und obwohl XP wohl das Major Release von Windows bisher war,

In terms of market and recognition I think that the name Windows 7 is great and in a sense goes back to the roots of Windows and naming/naming convention.

The revision number in general terms to the public is usually lost and with Windows XP and Vista, that broke ground to more colorful names.

The time and period might have been right then and it was in a sense the X era (breaking away a little) but with XP - you had OS X and obviously any *niX based OS.

So it's time to come back around or break away, easy to remember and actually catchy sounding. So in general I have no problems on those grounds.

My hope and worry is that doesn't fall into future releases that would coincide with the 9.x era...ie: Windows 7 SE.

With service packs common (NT) I would imagine that it wouldn't and if Windows 8 folowed on a major revison across time that would be in-line.

At the same time it tells my that at 6.1 it is the same relation as Windows 2000 was to Windows XP in terms what to expect in general as an upgrade.

Now question and adding some humor to the subject - is the inside joke that 7 is the lucky number?

分类: 膝上电脑 , 桌面产品 套一句老外爱用的网络语：WTF？ Windows Vista Blog 的 Mike Nash 解释为什么 Windows 7 要取这个名字 ，前半段和我们大家都知道的一样

This is a twisted connect-the-dots explanation for why the WRONG version number will be returned to apps that query.  Make it 7.0 and make sure lazy ISVs do their homework and update their apps.Or offer a compatibility switch that allows the OS to fool an old app that's doing a version check.  But don't create newspeak.

Brandon though I still believe it is a marketing ploy or tactic, that doesn't mean that it is the sole reason for the name.  I am quite sure other facets of the company had their say.  As far as the name not matching the true version number, Just look at the industry, AMD has been doing this for years, your Athlon 64 X2 4000 is 2.1 GHz.  My Intel core 2 duo E6550 is 2.33GHz (3.1 GHz over clocked :)) ATI and Nvidia have really convoluted their naming schemes lately.  What Microsoft is doing with the name I can take, all I want to see is it an actually an improvement over Vista.  My biggest complaint with Vista is the UI, and again going by the photos,and the Beta or IE 8.  I beleive Microsoft is serving it their way, just like they did in the beta's of Vista. Locking down the UI and giving their customers no choice. Their sort of a polar opposite of Burger King, "Your complaints, don't up set us because we know we know we know better, Have it our way, at Microsoft..."  sort of a little more catchy tune than "Life with out walls." and a lot more truthful, but I could be wrong, I'll know when I get the beta... :)

"Vita per Moenia"

Ty m razem nie będzie o .NET. Tym razem będzie o polityce nazewniczej firmy Microsoft . Jeśli dawno temu

Want to HIGHLIGHT this:

Here's where things get a little more complicated.  Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0.  Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

Do not know if it about to be simplified, but that informations is inaccurate, and I amazed that statement is come from Corporate Vice President, Windows Product Management, Microsoft Corp.

I'm using windows since it is version 3, was seen windows version 2 on friend, but never play with it at all.

Firstly, before Windows 2000, Microsoft have 2 totally different OS, (should be different kernel)

On first Branch there are Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 3.1.1 (Windows for WorkGroup), Windows 95, 98, 98SE, and the Last is ME

Second Branch there is NT 3.51 ( I do not know any previous version), NT 4 (3 variance: Standard, Enterprise, Terminal Server). This NT 4 is lasted at SP6a, somedate after 2000 (rather forgot about this one).

The first branch, is more for aesthetic, so was marketed for end user, but lack of stability. On this part, why Microsoft have really bad name on stability OS, too much blue screen.

The Second branch, is more stable, but less hardware support and lack of something like direct-x.

It's need years for Microsoft to blend this 2 branch (guessing more than 5 years, as NT was trying to get the windows 95 UI, but still have lack of wide-range hardware support. Windows ME, actually should be version 5 on the first branch, that is why it have code 4.90. but the release already too close to windows 2000, that come from second/NT branch.

For the rest starting Win 2k, I agree with Mike

Die nächste Version von Windows soll ja "Windows 7" heißen. Eine Begründung dafür kann man sich im 'Windows Vista Team Blog' durchlesen. Besonders faszinierend: Intern wird das OS die Versionsnummer 6.1 tragen. Damit ist es dann wohl eherWind

@PatriotB for:

"I doubt this very much.  XP was set of evolutionary improvements over 2000 and so the version number of 5.1 was very fitting and very deserving.  Certain components (namely, shell & common controls) DID do their own thing and bump up to V6 with XP (causing additional issues when they were still V6 in Vista), but overall the OS would never have been considered worthy of NT 6.0 by anybody."

My Comments:

XP is actually just a small update to the windows 2000. The major part is the shell which is actually use the desktop theme, and there is some tune on the kernel for better stability.

While from NT 4 to Windows 2k, and XP to Vista, there is an overhaul work on the kernel.

For development of Operating System, the most important is kernel code. While the UI is the shell part is something like 'gimmick' for the OS programmer

Hello my name is Josh I am new to this blog. I just had to comment on the “Windows 7” name. I feel that regardless of version numbers what MS have done is used the so called “main” releases since “95”.

Why you ask, because most consumers only know from 95 and the “main” versions onward.

So let us take a look.

95

98

2000 (Confusing name took much like “Me”)

Me (Confusing name took much like “2000”)

Xp (Let us be honest it wasn’t even called Xp it was called “Windows Experience” many people I speak to do not even know this)

Vista

7

Using my list “Windows 7” is the 7th version yes this is only going from 95 and passing over NT but look at it this way the average Windows user (no one on this blog) will only know these versions so it will make sense to them.

As for version numbers they can go to hell they don’t matter it is a number. I will say this looking back at the names and version numbers used starting with windows 1.0 Microsoft could have put more thought into it at the time but hey Windows 7 is a strong lucky name it in the west so works for me.

PS: I doubt however there will be a Windows 8, 9 etc and we all ready know there will be no windows 13 as MS skipped this as a codename for the next office.